Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Of course Steinway has done and is doing product development. Many of the standard features on an acoustic piano have stemmed from their development over the past 150 years.

They have also brought out two new models here in the United States in the past decade or so. They have a staff of engineers.

One thing to remember, Steinway has had a line up of models that have been incredibly successful for many many years. They are at the "top of the heap" and their R&D focuses on process, materials, and tweaking those successful models - at least in NY.

Also, more patents does not always equal more R&D. It sometimes equals more attempt at differentiation. These are not the same thing.

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 21721
Loc: New York City

Almost none(or maybe none)of the piano maker webites have much(or any) news about product development. Unless it's some big change or new model(relatively rare)it wouldn't be of much interest to most readers and it wouldn't be understood by most readers.

Almost none(or maybe none)of the piano maker webites have much(or any) news about product development. Unless it's some big change or new model(relatively rare)it wouldn't be of much interest to most readers and it wouldn't be understood by most readers.

Really? Have you explored Bechstein, Bluthner, Kawai/Shigeru, Yamaha and Mason & Hamlin websites and paid attention to Del's posts about his consultancy activities?

Neither the lack of patent activity nor the lack of announcements and/or technical analysis on a company’s website is an accurate indicator of development activity.

I just completed one of the most extensive redesign projects undertaken by any pianomaker in recent decades. Every piano in the product line has a new stringing scale (along with what were often extensive changes to the frame castings), new soundboard and rib designs, new bridges, changes to the actions; even new methods of hammer pressing. Through all of this there were no new patents applied for. And, even though some of the new models have been in production for a year or so the company’s websites do not yet say much of anything about the features of the new designs.

Patents are not always an indicator of real and substantive progress. Ideas that look really good on paper do not always translate into significant—or even noticeable—improvements in performance. As well, concepts that do make real improvements in performance may not be patentable; they may be too close to undeveloped prior art or they may be classified as “obvious to one skilled in the art.” Even though, after some three centuries of evolution it wasn’t obvious to anyone else.

I have, in my computer, several fresh, new designs for pianos that may or may not ever be built. Even though these designs are somewhat different than the basic, century-old designs common today there is little about them that is actually patentable. I am exploring the possibility of patenting several things included in their designs but I’ve not yet convinced myself that it will be worth the financial investment. While it might be worth it for a company that would gain the marketing attraction of patented features they are unlikely to be of significant financial benefit to me; at least not enough to offset the high cost of obtaining the patents.

While I lament the lack of innovative new design work—as opposed to the evolutionary refinement of the century-old core technologies the “modern piano” is based on—the lack of patent activity is not a good indicator of the problem. It is more a lack of courage it takes to be the first one to do something really new and innovative. Another way of putting that, of course, is to label it “prudent caution;” an unwillingness to open oneself up to a firestorm of criticism. Think back, for example, on the mostly misleading and inaccurate barrage of misinformation about the so-called “plastic” actions introduced by Kawai some 40+ years back. Thankfully they stayed the course and toughed out that firestorm of criticism and today the Kawai composite actions are recognized as being precise and reliable.

As may be, there is a great deal of innovative development that can be done without developing any new, patentable ideas or technologies. It remains to be seen whether or not it will be done.

Almost none(or maybe none)of the piano maker webites have much(or any) news about product development. Unless it's some big change or new model(relatively rare)it wouldn't be of much interest to most readers and it wouldn't be understood by most readers.

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 21721
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: Withindale

Originally Posted By: pianoloverus

Almost none(or maybe none)of the piano maker webites have much(or any) news about product development. Unless it's some big change or new model(relatively rare)it wouldn't be of much interest to most readers and it wouldn't be understood by most readers.

Really? Have you explored Bechstein, Bluthner, Kawai/Shigeru, Yamaha and Mason & Hamlin websites and paid attention to Del's posts about his consultancy activities?

I'm pretty familiar with those sites. I know that Yamaha has the new CF series and that Mason Hamlin added the B and AA models ( but quite a few years ago) and introduced the WNG action. But I think those changes were included in my comment about new models which is relatively rare in my view.

My point was that except in the case of major new models most of the minor changes are not usually mentioned on the websites for the reasons I mentioned. Steinway, for example, has made many improvements in the production in their NY factory, but I don't think any of those are mentioned on their website(perhaps because they would be seen as indications that things were not ideal before those changes).

I downloaded and listened to three of the samples there. The piano sounded, to my ears, like... a VERY GOOD Steinway! Had I not known what type of piano was being played, Steinway, and I mean a very well prepped Steinway "D", would have been my guess.

I didn't take out the sheet music to follow along with the Bach-Liszt, so I don't know if there were octave doublings to take advantage of the extended bass on the SP piano. Again - the bass was evocative of the best bass I've heard on the big Steinways.

What's interesting to me, having read a bit on the SP website about his many innovations, is that at the end of it, the sound is, again to my ears, at least for those recordings, as GOOD as Steinway at its best. And Steinway has been making pianos that sound that GOOD for... generations now.

One man's opinion... on the StephenPaulello piano as it relates to the OP's question and Steinway pianos.

Now as to whether or not Steinway should be improving - I guess the Devil is in the details. The "B" and "D" are industry standards in the classical music business. I'm in favor of incremental refinements - things that improve on the greatness of what is already there, be it tone, or touch, or frequency of required maintenance. As for the manufacturing process, as long as the workers are paid and treated well enough, and the factories aren't horribly profligate in how they treat and dispose of their hazardous wastes, that we're not killing animals for their ivory for the keys any more, cutting the very last of a particular breed of tree to the ground for its wood, etc., it doesn't matter to me as a player how the thing is made. What I care about is how a piano feels and sounds (and looks), and Steinway has been doing a good job at those things for generations.

Almost none(or maybe none)of the piano maker webites have much(or any) news about product development. Unless it's some big change or new model(relatively rare)it wouldn't be of much interest to most readers and it wouldn't be understood by most readers.

Now as to whether or not Steinway should be improving - I guess the Devil is in the details. The "B" and "D" are industry standards in the classical music business.

Yes, the "B" and "D" are almost perfect pianos, but the "A" and "C" models really aren't that good and could benefit of many improvements.

It's obvious that due to its dominant position, Steinway has less impetus to do research than, say, Fazioli, Yamaha and Steingraeber, that concede huge efforts just to take a small piece of Steinway's pie. While nobodoy would say, for instance that the Fazioli F212 is a better piano than the Hamburg Steinway B — even though it has some technical improvements, is more even and more powerful — I think it is undisputable that the Fazioli F183 is a much better piano than the 188cm Steinway A.

Many years ago I was confessing my love of the C scale pianos and a quite high-powered RPT, a graduate of the North Bennett outfit insisted that it had a fundamental design defect, although I don't remember just now what it was.

Now as to whether or not Steinway should be improving - I guess the Devil is in the details. The "B" and "D" are industry standards in the classical music business.

Yes, the "B" and "D" are almost perfect pianos, but the "A" and "C" models really aren't that good and could benefit of many improvements. =====SNIP====While nobodoy would say, for instance that the Fazioli F212 is a better piano than the Hamburg Steinway B — even though it has some technical improvements, is more even and more powerful — I think it is undisputable that the Fazioli F183 is a much better piano than the 188cm Steinway A.

With respect, I'm sure there's somebody, some good pianist somewhere, who will dispute the "undisputable". Our likes, and dislikes, are rather subjective, wouldn't you agree?

I named the "B" and the "D", because they really are wonderful instruments. I'm not fond of the 188cm "A"; but I have absolutely LOVED a number of restored "long A's" which, as I understand things, Steinway stopped making, because they were taking potential customers away from their "B" sales.

As to the "C", I think you're right. As I recall, and I can't recall the details now since it's been a while since I've played a "C", the scale has some odd transitions in it, and it probably would benefit from some redesign work.

Perhaps for another thread - can somebody explain to me the rationale for having the "C" in the line up? I get that the "D" can be played louder, project more, than the "B" - has extended bass. Was the "C" for smaller halls? bigger than what a "B" could work in, but smaller than where a "D" would be required? I really don't know, and it would be interesting to learn about this.

Probably said too much already. Steinway doesn't need me to defend them, and they certainly aren't paying me to do it. Good night to all.

I heard the (Hamburg) C played in concert once, in a small hall. In that venue, it sounded almost indistinguishable from a D, with plenty of power and bass. It did help that the pianist was Benjamin Grosvenor (who played Ravel, Chopin and Liszt, and pulled no punches).

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

I own a 1906 NY S&S-C. It is the 7'-5" version and was totally rebuilt/restored in 2004. The new Steinway hammers were shaped and sanded to match the specs from the era. They are lighter than the contemporary hammers used on the D's and it became a very fast action. The key length and geometry are exactly the same as its big brother. Tonally it is like the D without the sheer, blazing power. The bass is spectacular and unless you were competing with an orchestra in a 2,000 seat auditorium, you would not notice the difference. Production ceased in the U.S. in 1936. Hamburg has always manufactured the C.

A few months ago in NY, I accidentally attended a tech seminar given by one of Steinway's chief techicians, if not chief technician. He spoke about several significant changes being implemented. Perhaps a tech in the know can explain the changes in detail.

Also, the plate on the "B" has been modified over recent years.Don't know one way or another about any other models.

So yes, S&S is involved in product development.

fingers

_________________________
Playing piano at age 2, it was thought that I was some sort of idiot-savant. As it turns out, I'm just an idiot.

Several years ago I had an interesting situation. A Steinway D from 1957 that had a cracked capo, at the extreme top end of the piano, it was cracked at each end of the upper section and completely unstable in tuning. Without much hope, I called Steinway in New York and asked; 'Have you got a plate for a 57'-D behind the coffee-maker somewhere?'. To my immense surprise...they told me that the plate had not changed in the intervening 50+ years, and they would be happy to install the new plate and restring the piano.

This told me that research and development were not high on their list. They have a product, they like selling it; salesmanship and the 'cachet' of the Steinway line are what moves their product. Not 'innovation' and research and development.

Except that since 1957, Steinway has gone through adding Teflon to their actions, and then changing the way that they do that. They have changed their keys, most noticeably the tops perhaps as many times. They have changed the geometry of their actions, and the composition of their hammers. There are probably many other changes that we know about, but just have decided that they do not count.

Then there are other changes that may have happened that are not part of Steinway's research. For instance, I think the current Mapes piano wire is far superior to what we were getting when I started working on pianos years ago, and Steinway, as far as I know, uses that.

But...unchanged in decades? Dating to far before our current understanding of inharmonicity, scaling, and soundboard properties? Is the 'D' really so perfect in fundamental design?

Please understand that I am quite happy with the last several years of Steinway production! I tune and care for several very fine D and B pianos in performance venues and homes. But, I look at Yamaha, Kawai, Steingraber, Mason-Hamlin, Fazioli, and others for innovation...not Steinway. Young Chang is where Del brought that wealth of change and innovation into small grands...not at Steinway. I have, unfortunately, not been able to put an ear onto the new Young Chang models he refers to! Dangit. I feel Del best expresses how the piano manufacturing world works...as he has been part of it for most of his career. I always appreciate his input in these discussions (thanks, Del!).

Steinway? Their latest 'new' was a retro-looking Model 'O', trying to tap the 'good 'ol' days' market. Is Steinway good? Absolutely. Are they a source of innovation and forward thinking in the last 25 years? Show me!

Actually, the new model O has a different case than the old one. The lid prop fits in differently.

A place I work at just got a new D, which has some sort of special treatment around the edge of the lid to prevent damage as it is moved around. It also has the new big casters for moving around. I have not had a chance to check it out carefully, as construction is still going on, but those are some innovations I know about.

What are the main improvements would you make to the "C"? I am interested to know how you would compare it to other semi-concert grands.

I can't really pin this down precisely- I'm a pianist, not a piano technician — but I've always felt awkward playing the Model C's, which seemed to me to be rather stiff and unexpressive. This may have to do with the fact that it has a much larger pianos mechanics, while it is barely longer than the Model B. But I really don't know, but I have noticed that many pianists and technicians also rather dislike the Model C.

In this 3/4th grand range, at a similar length than the Steinway C, I think the Boesendorfer 225 really is a very nice instrument, certainly the best of the non-Imperial Boesendorfers.

This is probably a question of balance; Boesendorfers — compared to Steinway — generally lack power, that's why the extra length of the 225 Model versus the 2 meter model (lacking in the bass) is really appreciative. On the other hand, the Model C just seems unbalanced to me, awkwardly stuck in between the B and the D which are both perfect.

Considering the much lower price, the lowly Yamaha C7 is also very nice instrument, I think you can get a lot out of it with the right prepping/voicing (I'm not saying it's better than the C, but it is 3 times cheaper). This is just to say that the 2m20-30 range is not intrinsically bad, but that Steinway hasn't found the right combination for that instrument.

I generally think that every manufacturer has a piano length where he really shines...

Yes, the "B" and "D" are almost perfect pianos, but the "A" and "C" models really aren't that good and could benefit of many improvements. =====SNIP====While nobodoy would say, for instance that the Fazioli F212 is a better piano than the Hamburg Steinway B — even though it has some technical improvements, is more even and more powerful — I think it is undisputable that the Fazioli F183 is a much better piano than the 188cm Steinway A.

With respect, I'm sure there's somebody, some good pianist somewhere, who will dispute the "undisputable". Our likes, and dislikes, are rather subjective, wouldn't you agree?

I actually had a 1899-1900 Steinway A fore many years - until the soundboard cracked all over during a particularly cold and dry winter - and absolutely adored it.

But despite the subjectivity of our likes and dislikes, we can say that the F183 is indeed a much better piano than the Model A - it's technically more advanced, has more power, more projection, more dynamics. I don't think many people are in love with the Model A, or that Steinway is loved because of that model. People buy Model A's because they can't afford or don't have the space for a Model B— and I don't think the savings of 23 cm or 10 000$ are worthwhile when you can afford the already very expensive A.

I concede that you may prefer the "Steinway sound" to the "Fazioli sound" (which is my case) , and thus prefer the lesser piano with the sound you like to the better piano with the sound you like less...

What are the main improvements would you make to the "C"? I am interested to know how you would compare it to other semi-concert grands.

I can't really pin this down precisely- I'm a pianist, not a piano technician — but I've always felt awkward playing the Model C's, which seemed to me to be rather stiff and unexpressive. This may have to do with the fact that it has a much larger pianos mechanics, while it is barely longer than the Model B....

In this 3/4th grand range, at a similar length than the Steinway C, I think the Boesendorfer 225 really is a very nice instrument, certainly the best of the non-Imperial Boesendorfers....

This is probably a question of balance; Boesendorfers — compared to Steinway — generally lack power, that's why the extra length of the 225 Model versus the 2 meter model (lacking in the bass) is really appreciative. On the other hand, the Model C just seems unbalanced to me, awkwardly stuck in between the B and the D which are both perfect.

Considering the much lower price, the lowly Yamaha C7 is also very nice instrument, I think you can get a lot out of it with the right prepping/voicing (I'm not saying it's better than the C, but it is 3 times cheaper)....

I have a 1905 Ibach 235 at the moment. It happens to be contemporary with Marty's Model C.

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty

I own a 1906 NY S&S-C. It is the 7'-5" version and was totally rebuilt/restored in 2004. The new Steinway hammers were shaped and sanded to match the specs from the era. They are lighter than the contemporary hammers used on the D's and it became a very fast action. The key length and geometry are exactly the same as its big brother. Tonally it is like the D without the sheer, blazing power.

The gentleman who restored the Ibach a few years ago described it as a "late Romantic instrument". That seems to accord with Marty's lighter hammers from that era.

Seeing the comments about the C having a D action I checked the Ibach. Its keys are about 21" long like a B and the longest string is 69" (agraffe to bridge) half way between the B at 59" and D at 79".

While the reasons for D keys and action in a shorter instrument are clear, who knows if a C with a B action and longer strings might have been more popular?